DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 4 as reciting:
“wherein a groove of the plurality of grooves is formed on a diagonal line of the electronic component.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 5 as reciting:
“wherein a cross-sectional area of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 6 as reciting:
“wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 7 as reciting:
“wherein a groove depth of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 4 as reciting:
“wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the groove depth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 9 as reciting:
“wherein a groove depth gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the groove width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 4 as reciting:
“wherein a groove width is at least 1.7 mm.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the groove depth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 4 as reciting:
“wherein a groove depth is at least 0.7 mm.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination below, Examiner interprets claim 4 as reciting:
“wherein a cross-sectional shape of a groove of the plurality of grooves is an arc shape.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US 9277681 B2) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2002289751 A).
As to Claim 1, Kawai discloses:
An electronic control device (electronic control apparatus 10) comprising:
a circuit board 11 mounted with an electronic component 14b (col. 3, Lines 5-6 “Electronic components 14a and 14b are mounted on the circuit board 11”) and a connector 15 (col. 3, Lines 40-41 “The connector 15 is attached to one part of a circumferential-edge portion of the circuit board 11”); a base (case 12) housing the circuit board 11; a cover 13 closing the base 12 (col. 2, Lines 45-48 “the electronic control apparatus 10 that accommodates a circuit board (circuit substrate) 11 in an internal space of a housing formed by combining a plurality of housing members (such as a case 12 and a cover 13”); a heat dissipation pedestal (convex portions 21 of heat radiating portions 20) formed on the base 12 (col. 4, Lines 34-37 “Each of the convex portions 21 protrudes from an inner wall surface of the bottom wall 12a at a location facing (opposed to) the heat-generating electronic component 14b”); and a thermally conductive material 33 arranged on an upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal 21 (col. 7, Lines 5-8 “an elastic heat-radiating material 33 is provided to be interposed between the flat closest surface 21a and the heat-generating electronic component 14b”),
the electronic component 14b is in contact with the heat dissipation pedestal 21 via the thermally conductive material 33 (col. 7, Lines 30-33 “when the heat-generating electronic component 14b generates heat, this heat is transferred through the elastic heat-radiating material 33 to the convex portion 21”).
Kawai does not disclose:
wherein a plurality of grooves which is formed radially from a center of the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal and in which the thermally conductive material enters are formed on an upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal on which the thermally conductive material is arranged.
However, Hiroshi discloses:
wherein a plurality of grooves (grooves 1e, see Fig. 3a) which is formed radially from a center of the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal (stepped portion 1a; grooves 1e extend radially from center and are disposed on surface that contacts IC therefore corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai) and in which the thermally conductive material (heat conductive paste 3, corresponds to 33 of Kawai) enters are formed on an upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal 1a on which the thermally conductive material 3 is arranged (paste 3 provided on flat surface facing IC, corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai; Par. 0022 “all four sides of the flat surface are cut into a circular shape, and two grooves 1e are provided on each side parallel to the diagonal lines of the flat surface. When the heat conductive paste 3 is squeezed out of the tube onto the flat surface”);
in order to prevent the overflow of heat conductive paste and ensure an even distribution of the paste (Par. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai as further suggested by Hiroshi e.g., providing:
wherein a plurality of grooves which is formed radially from a center of the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal and in which the thermally conductive material enters are formed on an upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal on which the thermally conductive material is arranged;
in order to prevent the overflow of heat conductive paste/thermally conductive material and ensure an even distribution of the paste/material.
As to Claim 4 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi discloses:
wherein a groove (1e of Hiroshi) of the plurality of grooves is formed on a diagonal line of the electronic component (IC of Hiroshi, corresponds to 14b of Kawai; Par. 0022 “two grooves 1e are provided on each side parallel to the diagonal lines of the flat surface”; Hiroshi).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US 9277681 B2) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2002289751 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 20100246133 A1).
As to Claim 2, the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein the thermally conductive material contains a filler, and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%), a groove width of each of the plurality of grooves is at least 0.06u (mm).
However, Schmidt discloses:
wherein the thermally conductive material 104 contains a filler (Par. 0044 “the TIM 104 can include metal particles such as silver or platinum, a ceramic (e.g., aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, etc.), a specialized chemical compound, carbon, or another material”; Par. 0061 “assuming that TIM 104 is a grease with 5 micron metal or ceramic particles, the post-assembly distribution of TIM 104 can be such that a layer of TIM 104 15-30 microns deep is spread throughout the mating surface”), and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material 104 to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%) (particles in TIM 104 are provided at a percentage of the volume of the TIM 104), a groove width of each of the plurality of grooves (3D surface features 108, correspond to 1e of Hiroshi) is at least 0.06u (mm) (dimensions 3D surface features selected to affect flow of TIM; Par. 0064 “the 3D surface features 108 are determined based on the flow characteristics of TIM 104. For example, modeling TIM 104 as a fluid (i.e., where TIM 104 is a grease or another spreadable substance), using techniques that are known in the art, it is possible to compute parameters such as feed rate, turbulence, back waves, particle suspension (i.e., particle drop-out, etc.), and percentage of loading based on potential 3D surface features”; “the 3D surface features 108 can be configured to reduce or accentuate their effects on TIM 104's flow dynamic”; Par. 0065 “although heat sink 102 is shown in FIG. 1 with a particular set of 3D surface features 108, in alternative embodiments, a different number and/or a different type of surface features can be present in the mating surfaces of heat sink 102 and/or IC 100. For example, the 3D surface features 108 can include tapered regions, plateaus, pyramids, domes, divots, or any combination of protrusions and/or indentations. The surface features can also include triangular, semicircular, or rectangular grooves or ridges, or tapered grooves or ridges (wherein the tapering occurs in any dimension)”; Par. 0083 “grooves can change geometry along their lengths. For example, a groove can be tapered from wide and nearly flat to steeply sided and narrow along a given length. In addition, a groove can switch to an entirely separate geometry such as from triangle-cross sectioned to rounded-cross sectioned. Moreover, a groove can include one or more sub-features (i.e., fins, undercuts, protrusions, indentations, etc.) for only a portion of its length, or can include any number of different sub-features separately or together in different locations along its length”);
in order to reduce or accentuate the flow dynamics of the TIM (Par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Schmidt e.g., providing:
wherein the thermally conductive material contains a filler, and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%), a groove width of each of the plurality of grooves is at least 0.06u (mm);
in order to reduce or accentuate the flow dynamics of the TIM/thermally conductive material.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the relative dimensions of the grooves for effecting the desired results of thermally conductive material flow) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to Claim 3, the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein the thermally conductive material contains a filler, and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%), a groove depth of each of the plurality of grooves is at least 0.008u + 0.5 (mm).
However, Schmidt discloses:
wherein the thermally conductive material 104 contains a filler (Par. 0044 “the TIM 104 can include metal particles such as silver or platinum, a ceramic (e.g., aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, etc.), a specialized chemical compound, carbon, or another material”; Par. 0061 “assuming that TIM 104 is a grease with 5 micron metal or ceramic particles, the post-assembly distribution of TIM 104 can be such that a layer of TIM 104 15-30 microns deep is spread throughout the mating surface”), and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material 104 to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%) (particles in TIM 104 are provided at a percentage of the volume of the TIM 104), a groove depth of each of the plurality of grooves (3D surface features 108, correspond to 1e of Hiroshi) is at least 0.008u + 0.5 (mm) (dimensions 3D surface features selected to affect flow of TIM; Par. 0064 “the 3D surface features 108 are determined based on the flow characteristics of TIM 104. For example, modeling TIM 104 as a fluid (i.e., where TIM 104 is a grease or another spreadable substance), using techniques that are known in the art, it is possible to compute parameters such as feed rate, turbulence, back waves, particle suspension (i.e., particle drop-out, etc.), and percentage of loading based on potential 3D surface features”; “the 3D surface features 108 can be configured to reduce or accentuate their effects on TIM 104's flow dynamic”; Par. 0065 “although heat sink 102 is shown in FIG. 1 with a particular set of 3D surface features 108, in alternative embodiments, a different number and/or a different type of surface features can be present in the mating surfaces of heat sink 102 and/or IC 100. For example, the 3D surface features 108 can include tapered regions, plateaus, pyramids, domes, divots, or any combination of protrusions and/or indentations. The surface features can also include triangular, semicircular, or rectangular grooves or ridges, or tapered grooves or ridges (wherein the tapering occurs in any dimension)”; Par. 0083 “grooves can change geometry along their lengths. For example, a groove can be tapered from wide and nearly flat to steeply sided and narrow along a given length. In addition, a groove can switch to an entirely separate geometry such as from triangle-cross sectioned to rounded-cross sectioned. Moreover, a groove can include one or more sub-features (i.e., fins, undercuts, protrusions, indentations, etc.) for only a portion of its length, or can include any number of different sub-features separately or together in different locations along its length”);
in order to reduce or accentuate the flow dynamics of the TIM (Par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Schmidt e.g., providing:
wherein the thermally conductive material contains a filler, and when a volume ratio of the filler contained in the thermally conductive material to an entire volume of the thermally conductive material is u (vol%), a groove depth of each of the plurality of grooves is at least 0.008u + 0.5 (mm);
in order to reduce or accentuate the flow dynamics of the TIM/thermally conductive material.
Additionally, see case law in rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 5-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US 9277681 B2) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2002289751 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoffman (US 20080296757 A1).
As to Claim 5 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a cross-sectional area of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a cross-sectional area of a groove (channel 11; see Fig. 1) of the plurality of grooves (channels 11, 12; correspond to 1e of Hiroshi) is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 (peripheral region of heat spreader 10; region in contact with chip 30 corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai) than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal (central region of 10; Par. 0051 “with width W gradually narrowing down from both ends toward the center of the first surface”; channel 11 wider at ends than in center, therefore area larger at ends than center);
in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader (Par. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a cross-sectional area of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal;
in order to in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader.
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to Claim 6 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a width of a groove (channel 11; see Fig. 1) of the plurality of grooves (channels 11, 12; correspond to 1e of Hiroshi) is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 (peripheral region of heat spreader 10; region in contact with chip 30 corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai) than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal (central region of 10; Par. 0051 “with width W gradually narrowing down from both ends toward the center of the first surface”; channel 11 wider at ends than in center);
in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader (Par. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal;
in order to in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader.
Additionally, see case law in rejection of claim 5 above.
As to Claim 7 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a groove depth of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a groove depth (depth D1, D2, see Fig. 3) of a groove (channel) of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 (depth is greater on a region away from center of heat spreader 10 than the center of heat spreader 10; region in contact with chip 30 corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai; Par. 0054 “the depth D1 at the middle is smaller than the depth D2 of the neighborhood area. The change in depth in one channel can be regular or irregular, symmetrical or asymmetrical. The changes in depth in one channel can be similar or dissimilar to the changes in depth in any of the other channels. The more the depth varies the more the affect on the fluid flow”);
in order to reduce the thickness of the fluid between the heat transfer structure and component (Par. 0055) in order to increase heat transfer (Par. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a groove depth of a groove of the plurality of grooves is larger on an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal than on an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal;
in order to reduce the thickness of the fluid/thermal conductive material between the heat transfer structure/pedestal and component in order to increase heat transfer.
Additionally, see case law in rejection of claim 5 above.
As to Claim 8 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a width of a groove (channel 11; see Fig. 1) of the plurality of grooves (channels 11, 12; correspond to 1e of Hiroshi) gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal (central region of 10; region in contact with chip 30 corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai) toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal (peripheral region of heat spreader 10; Par. 0051 “with width W gradually narrowing down from both ends toward the center of the first surface”; channel 11 gradually wider from center to ends);
in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader (Par. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a width of a groove of the plurality of grooves gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal;
in order to in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader.
Additionally, see case law in rejection of claim 5 above.
As to Claim 9 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a groove depth gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a groove depth (D1, see Fig. 3) gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 (center of 10; region in contact with chip 30 corresponds to upper surface of 21 of Kawai) toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal 10 (depth is greater on a region away from center of heat spreader 10 than the center of heat spreader 10; Par. 0054 “the depth D1 at the middle is smaller than the depth D2 of the neighborhood area. The change in depth in one channel can be regular or irregular, symmetrical or asymmetrical. The changes in depth in one channel can be similar or dissimilar to the changes in depth in any of the other channels. The more the depth varies the more the affect on the fluid flow”; Par. 0055 “with a given channel, the bottom profile of the channel is preferable gradually changed”);
in order to reduce the thickness of the fluid between the heat transfer structure and component (Par. 0055) in order to increase heat transfer (Par. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a groove depth gradually increases from an upper surface inside of the heat dissipation pedestal toward an upper surface outside of the heat dissipation pedestal;
in order to reduce the thickness of the fluid/thermal conductive material between the heat transfer structure/pedestal and component in order to increase heat transfer.
Additionally, see case law in rejection of claim 5 above.
As to Claim 10 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a groove width is at least 1.7 mm.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a groove width is variable (Par. 0072 “the channels on each face or surface can be of different scale, orientation or other features”);
in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader (Par. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a groove width is at least 1.7 mm;
in order to improve heat transfer to the heat spreader.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the groove width for effecting the desired heat transfer capability) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to Claim 11 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a groove depth is at least 0.7 mm.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a groove depth is variable (Par. 0072 “the channels on each face or surface can be of different scale, orientation or other features”; Par. 0054 “The change in depth in one channel can be regular or irregular, symmetrical or asymmetrical. The changes in depth in one channel can be similar or dissimilar to the changes in depth in any of the other channels. The more the depth varies the more the affect on the fluid flow”);
in order to affect fluid flow (Par. 0054) and to increase heat transfer (Par. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a groove depth is at least 0.7 mm;
in order to affect fluid/thermally conductive material flow and to increase heat transfer.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the groove depth for effecting the desired heat transfer capability) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to Claim 16 (as best understood), the obvious modification of Kawai in view of Hiroshi does not disclose:
wherein a cross-sectional shape of a groove of the plurality of grooves is an arc shape.
However, Hoffman discloses:
wherein a cross-sectional shape of a groove (14, see Fig. 4) of the plurality of grooves is an arc shape (Par. 0015 “the channel has a convex, semi-circle, V-shaped or other non-rectangular profile”; Par. 0056 “the profile of one of the channels 14 can be convex, semi-circle, V-shaped or any other profile”);
in order to reduce the thickness between the heat transfer structure 10 and the IC chip 30 (Par. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai in view of Hiroshi as further suggested by Hoffman e.g., providing:
wherein a cross-sectional shape of a groove of the plurality of grooves is an arc shape;
in order to reduce the thickness between the heat transfer structure/pedestal and the electronic component.
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 12-15, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the dependent claims 12 and 15, including all of the limitations of their base claims and intervening claims, and at least in part, because claims 12 and 15 recite the following limitations:
“wherein a semiconductor chip is arranged on the electronic component, and a ratio of an area of the plurality of grooves which the semiconductor chip does not face via the thermally conductive material formed on the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal to an area of the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal is larger than a ratio of an area of the plurality of grooves which the semiconductor chip faces via the thermally conductive material formed on the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal to an area of the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal.” – claim 12;
“wherein a semiconductor chip is arranged on the electronic component, and the plurality of grooves are formed only on the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal which the semiconductor chip does not face via the thermally conductive material formed on the upper surface of the heat dissipation pedestal.” – claim 15.
Watanabe (US 20240164066 A1) discloses an electronic component in contact with thermal conductive material, wherein the thermal conductive material is dispersed in grooves. However, does not disclose the claimed groove configuration contacting a semiconductor device.
Nakagawa (US 6445594 B1) discloses stacked semiconductor devices on a circuit board, however does not disclose the claimed groove configuration contacting a semiconductor device.
Brandenburg (US 20070268671 A1) discloses heat dissipating pedestals, but does not disclose grooves with thermal conductive material.
Braasch (US 6437438 B1) and Brunschwiler (US 7282799 B2) disclose grooves affecting the flow of thermally conductive material, but does not disclose the claimed groove configuration contacting a semiconductor device
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claims 12 and 15, are believed to render said claims 12 and 15 and all claims dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S MUIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW SINCLAIR MUIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2835